ML11280A116: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 13: Line 13:
| document type = General FR Notice Comment Letter
| document type = General FR Notice Comment Letter
| page count = 1
| page count = 1
| project =
| stage = Other
}}
}}
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:HULL.'' /, LtS" ..PageLI of1 Page I of I PULI SBMSSO4N 9: 54 PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: October 04, 2011 Received:
October 04, 2011 Status: PendingPost Tracking No. 80f4af99 Comments Due: November 16, 2011 Submission Type: Web FD I -", /KiF I j .-D Docket: NRC-2010-0029 Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Columbia Generating Station Facility Operating License Comment On: NRC-2010-0029-0015 Energy Northwest, Columbia Generating Station; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station Document:
NRC-2010-0029-DRAFT-0037 Comment on FR Doe # 2011-22415 2~M Submitter Information General Comment I was watching a tv show talking about the various risks, both in the past, presently, and into the future associated with the nuclear facility in the Hanford area and would like submit my request that the Columbia Generating Station NOT have its license renewed. It appears that not only are there inherent risks in the operation of nuclear plants generally due to possible defects in the components, human error, etc., but the proximity of this particular station to a Seismic Fault Zone highly increases those risks (the Japan earthquake should make us very sensitive to this situation).
Also, 60 years seems to be 'pushing' the safety capability quite a bit -I had heard, years ago, that nuclear plants were built for about a 25-year life.ol-ýhttpsl//fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900006480f4af9...
10/04/2011}}

Latest revision as of 21:36, 2 August 2018

Comment (31) of Unknown Individual Opposing License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11280A116
Person / Time
Site: Columbia Energy Northwest icon.png
Issue date: 10/04/2011
From:
- No Known Affiliation
To:
Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch
References
76FR54502 00031, NRC-2010-0029
Download: ML11280A116 (1)


Text

HULL. /, LtS" ..PageLI of1 Page I of I PULI SBMSSO4N 9: 54 PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: October 04, 2011 Received:

October 04, 2011 Status: PendingPost Tracking No. 80f4af99 Comments Due: November 16, 2011 Submission Type: Web FD I -", /KiF I j .-D Docket: NRC-2010-0029 Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Columbia Generating Station Facility Operating License Comment On: NRC-2010-0029-0015 Energy Northwest, Columbia Generating Station; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station Document:

NRC-2010-0029-DRAFT-0037 Comment on FR Doe # 2011-22415 2~M Submitter Information General Comment I was watching a tv show talking about the various risks, both in the past, presently, and into the future associated with the nuclear facility in the Hanford area and would like submit my request that the Columbia Generating Station NOT have its license renewed. It appears that not only are there inherent risks in the operation of nuclear plants generally due to possible defects in the components, human error, etc., but the proximity of this particular station to a Seismic Fault Zone highly increases those risks (the Japan earthquake should make us very sensitive to this situation).

Also, 60 years seems to be 'pushing' the safety capability quite a bit -I had heard, years ago, that nuclear plants were built for about a 25-year life.ol-ýhttpsl//fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900006480f4af9...

10/04/2011